An ongoing review of politics and culture

I guess it’s time we did. Palin is one of the top two contenders for the nomination right now. She is the only candidate with an actual and substantial popular base of support, the only one who can generate real popular enthusiasm. She has little in the way of an organization of her own, but she’s the candidate in the best position to coopt the organization that the Tea Party Movement is building. And to the extent that her endorsements are perceived to have made a real difference in the primaries (as, after Georgia, they are beginning to be), that will speak loudly to local GOP bigwigs.

Her strongest competition is Mitt Romney, who is strong where Palin is weak – obvious intelligence, establishment backing, proven ability to run an actual campaign for President, strong organizational skills and a deep political organization – but who is strikingly weak where Palin is strong. In fact, Romney is pretty much exactly the candidate Palin wants to run against: someone who generates little popular enthusiasm, comes off as phony, is a member of the elite and the establishment, is easy to tar as a fence-sitter and position-changer – and a man with surprisingly little sex appeal for somebody so objectively good-looking. And he got beat last time by a guy with no organization, no money, and who nobody in the GOP establishment really wanted to see win. And he’s a Mormon. Whose first career was as a Wall Street banker. Who signed a health care plan as governor of Massachusetts that looks a lot like the one President Obama signed for the whole country. Don’t get me wrong – Romney has a very real shot at the nomination. But he’s not the strongest horse I’ve ever seen.

Who else is in the race? Huckabee is weaker than Palin where she is strong and not notably strong where she is weak – and he’s at least as unacceptable to the powers that be in the GOP. And then there’s the parade of governors – Jindal, Pawlenty, Barbour, Daniels, Perry, possibly Christie or somebody else I’ve forgotten. Once upon a time Mark Sanford was on that list. And then there’s Newt Gingrich, a man who may actually have more Republican enemies than Democratic ones. I really do feel like if any of these guys was going to be a serious contender, we’d have heard about it by now. Pawlenty’s the only one who’s definitely running, and Perry is the only one who could consolidate a lot of support quickly if the opportunity arose.

That makes it sound like we’ve basically got a two-person race and we’ll see who wins. But the GOP establishment, such as it is, must be terrified of a Palin campaign, and will want to quash her candidacy somehow. After all, if she runs against them, and wins, then they’ve been defeated. That’s bad enough. If she then runs disastrously in the general election – and all indications are that she would – the party suffers a massive defeat. That’s worse. And if she wins the general election? Well, let’s leave aside what that means for the country and assume we’re just dealing with self-interested individuals worried about their own political futures. If Sarah Palin wins the Presidency, then she reshapes her party to suit her preferences. And anybody who came out strongly against her will be in the doghouse for years. She is not a “with malice toward none, with charity for all” type of Republican.

Moreover, even if they get on-board with her, I have a hard time picturing them being comfortable trusting her. Again, assume they don’t care whether she has any idea what she’s doing and assume they don’t care what happens to the country. Just in terms of political trust – will this person return my favors; will this person play the game – Palin’s got to have a really high wall to climb. Really high.

So no doubt they want to stop her before it gets to that point. How can they do it?

They can’t expect the gasbags to do it for them, because it’s not in their interest. Attacking Palin would be bad business for Limbaugh or Beck or whoever – if only because it would divide their audience. They can’t expect the mainstream media to do it for them because of the limited influence the regular media has in Republican circles. And they can’t do it themselves directly because they don’t act in concert, and anybody who sticks his neck out first is liable to get it chopped off.

Their first, entirely reasonable hope is going to be that she does it to herself. That she fails to build an effective network of support. That she has a massive falling out with leaders of the Tea Party over some esoteric point or other. That she gets blamed for some high-profile midterm losses and responds by lashing out at her critics, making her seem like even more of a loser. That she just gets old, and people move on to something new. If any of that happens, the race opens up. And all of that is very possible. I’m skeptical that Palin can easily be stopped by anybody outside pointing out her deficiencies. But one debate where she looks scared of the competition, or where she comes off as whiny and defensive, and should could drop like a rock, because she’s a celebrity candidate; if her persona cracks she has nothing to fall back on.

But if her strategy works on her terms, then the GOP has a problem.

If that happens, the GOP will need to convince Romney to go kamikaze. Which may not be that hard. Romney has absolutely got to win this time. Palin could put together a career as a media superstar or political kingmaker even if she loses, provided she goes out the right way. Huckabee certainly seems to be enjoying his show. The various worthy governors probably have as good a shot in 2016 as they do now, assuming the GOP loses in 2012. Heck, they all probably would settle for Vice President anyway, and it’s pretty easy to see Jindal or Daniels taking the job of being “President Palin’s brain”. But Romney’s already been running for President for four years. He’s got nowhere else to go. And he has no hope of having a role in a Palin Administration. While others might have reason to appease Palin, Romney has none. The only reason for him not to try to destroy her is if he thinks he’s more likely to win without doing that, and in the scenario we’re worrying about that’s not the case. Of course, throwing everything at her probably damages Romney more than it does her – but he may have no choice at some point but to try it. And if he can damage her enough that both of them have very high negatives among Republicans, then someone like Rick Perry could enter relatively late, swoop in and snatch the nomination. And Romney can console himself with being Treasury Secretary or something.

So that’s the way I expect things to play out. One or two very plausible candidates who may not be sure about running will wait in the wings for a bit. If Palin flames out and Romney doesn’t connect, then we have an open race. If it looks like Romney is running away with it, they stay out. If it looks like a Palin insurgency could actually win, pressure comes down on Romney to put her away, and the new establishment favorite becomes the candidate that the Palinites can reconcile themselves to.

I should say, as an aside, that we should all really hope that Palin does not get the nomination, whether we’re Republicans or Democrats. I admit, I liked her for about five minutes, before she opened her mouth. But, as I later concluded, she’s a shallow and demagogic politician, someone who would be an absolute disaster for the country. I know there are some Democrats who think it’d be a good thing if she were nominated because she’d be easier to beat, but the big drivers of the election are going to be the unemployment rate and events on the war front, and if both go badly the Republicans could probably nominate a ham sandwich and get some traction. They’d certainly be able to get some traction with a nominee who has the keen gut instincts that a successful demagogue like Sarah Palin has to have.

Leave a Reply

“And if she wins the general election?”

I imagine this is kind of how rational Italians felt at a certain point, contemplating Mussolini’s future in politics.

I think there’s a few more plausible Republican candidates than you’re giving credit to. First of all, Huckabee may yet become the compromise candidate between the Palinites and the Romneyites. There’s also 40-odd Republican Senators and ex-Senators who may have a thought (John Thune, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions… hey, why not Scott Brown? Or any other high-profile 2010 Senate newcomer like a Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, or Carly Fiorina), Jon Huntsman would be a VERY interesting candidate if he returned from China, any number of private sector candidates, and last but certainly not least… one Jeb Bush.

Don’t forget, four years ago around this time, Democrats were anticipating a Clinton vs. Edwards primary season. There’s a lot of race yet to be run.

Minor correction: Romney started out as a management consultant and was never a “Wall Street banker”.

Palin is marvelously good at making enemies. Primaries usually boil down to two candidates pretty quickly. The anti-Palin—whoever that is—will immediately have all of Palin’s enemies as supporters. That’s why I don’t see her getting the nomination, much less the election.

Second, I agree with “right”. Huckabee hard to discount. He is kind of a mini-Palin in his appeal, but is the anti-Palin in terms of his repulsiveness, both physical and political. Nobody dislikes him. Many people loath Palin.

I’m no big Sarah Palin fan, but the Noah Millmans of the world said the same sorts of things about Reagan. Unless Mr. Millman wants to explain how wrong liberal New York Democrats were back then and why, I see no reason to take him seriously.

I’ve never met anyone like Noah Millman, and the idea that he is a longstanding type in American life strikes me as ridiculous. Also, note that the real Noah Millman, as opposed to the Noah Millmans of the world, has very different opinions of Regan and Palin.

“Huh? A standard issue New York liberal Democratic yuppie. There’s thousands of them.”

And we are coming for you y81. We are going to drag you from your trailer home and enroll you in a gay polygamous marriage and take your guns in the same fell swoop (the swoop with be supremely fell, you can trust me on that). Then we will tax the heck out of you and force you to appear before a death panel (chaired by the ghost of ODB) to explain what you have to offer to the collective (if your skills are redundant we will euthenize you and tax your death). The whole time we will be touching you inappropriately and speaking with one of those NY jewish accents as we flaunt our elite erudition by using big words like erudtion (it means we know a lot more than you do).

I think you are dismissing Huckabee and Gingrich too quickly. Take a look at the recent Time poll http://pollingreport.com/2012.htm (2nd poll down). Huckabee leads both Palin and Romney and Newt only trails Palin by 2 points.

If Palin does run (and I’m still not convinced she will), I expect the sensible part of the party to rally around an “anybody but Palin” candidate. Romney seems likely to be the preferred candidate, but if he doesn’t get any traction I could see Newt or (god forbid) Huckabee being a compromise candidate.

Mike Huckabee’s cred among Christian conservatives is solid, as is his stubbornness in staying in a primary race a long time. In a war of attrition Huckabee will pull voters from Palin while Romney comes in with a stake to finish her off.

Even if she somehow wins a split GOP vote primary, she’s never, ever, faced an opponent like Obama, who will steamroll her in a general election. Like him or not, he’s the best campaigner we’ve seen since Bill Clinton.

The Republican Party will get behind anyone who – GWB proved that. Competence, intelligence, sanity – none of these matter when compared with winning. Who cares that the party not only nearly destroyed the country, but they now have absolutely no suggestions how to fix the mess they made (oh right, tax cuts). So they’ll be happy as hell to follow her if she wins. Look at how long Michael Steele has lasted, fer crying out loud.

<i><blockquote>“The Noah Millmans of the world”?
<p>
I’ve never met anyone like Noah Millman, and the idea that he is a longstanding type in American life strikes me as ridiculous. Also, note that the real Noah Millman, as opposed to the Noah Millmans of the world, has very different opinions of Regan and Palin.</blockquote></i>

Of course you have. It’s the same type of progressivism that says, “Nixon won? How could that be? Everyone I know voted for McGovern!”

How and ever, taking tongue firmly out of cheek, allow me to point out that this is yet another “Gorillas in the Mist” analysis of the Republican Party that I find somewhat difficult to believe, for it assumes that the Establishment GOP would instruct Romney to go suicidal on Palin during an election that she was winning, knowing full well that the result of that would have enormous negative consequences in the fall to the Establishment Candidates in downticket Republican races.

This post betrays an enormous lack of knowledge of internal Republican politics. A compromise would be made at some point, probably involving the Bush Family. The winner would get the Nomination, the loser the Veep shot or a primo cabinet post. That’s the way things are done. It didn’t work out with McCain/Romney because the two men couldn’t stand each other and the Bush Family’s ability to adjudicate disputes had been temporarily blown to smithereens by Dubya.

When liberals write about Republican politics, all sort of nonsense gets written, as if they really think they know what is going on in our party. What is coming is basically another repeat of Goldwater/Rockefeller ’64, Reagan/Nixon ’68, and Reagan/Ford ’76. In the end, the populist conservatives ALWAYS take control of the Party. We ALWAYS win. It’s just a question of how long and what compromises have to be made with the Ruling Class (hat tip, Codevilla).

Palin may not win the nomination, but her ascent has begun the decline of the Bush family’s hold on the party, and the return to Power of the Reagan forces, who haven’t controlled the party since RR left town in 1988. The effort by Rove, et al, to form “American Crossroads” should be seen for what it is: a rearguard action by the Rockefeller wing of the Party to maintain control and access to the feeding trough now occupied by the Obama Democrats.

However, I believe Palin to be a lot smarter and more talented than folks around here give her credit for so being, so I suspect she will actually both win the nomination outright and make the compromises with the Bush forces necessary to keep the center in the Party and on board.

The dynamics of the race right now favor Palin, and I don’t think Huckabee’s the guy to take it away from her (Huckabee needs support from the establishment to do that, and they hate what he has to say about poverty) but I’d take a close look at, as you mentioned, Mitch Daniels & Rick Perry, and John Thune, as “right” mentioned. Kyl is an interesting choice, but if he thinks the Repubs will retake the Senate in 2012, he probably won’t run, preferring Senate Majority Whip (same reason Chuck Schumer’s never run.) Sessions is too toxic nationwide, Scott Brown too moderate (he’s already voted with Obama on, what, two key issues?) Huntsman is dead in the water—come on, he’s CURRENTLYSERVING in the Obama administration. Toomey, Portman, and Fiorina all need to win first, but of those, I’d say Portman is the one to keep an eye out for. I don’t see Jeb Bush running in 2012; if he does run, he’ll do it in 2016.

My pick for the eventual Republican nominee is John Thune. High positives both with the religious right and the business community, and none of the negatives of the folk already in the race. You heard it here first.

“Huckabee is weaker than Palin where she is strong and not notably strong where she is weak”

Huckabee is far better at dealing with the media then Palin. His main weakness is that the supply-siders hate him. That means he will not have the money that Romney will. One likely scenario is that Romney damages Palin with a blizzard of ads and her followers go to Huckabee with her endorsement.

This woman is a opportunist rino who sided with democrats more often than her own party.

The Palin/Parnell administration is filled with democratic hacks who were brought in after Palin fired most of the Murkowski leftovers.

She raised taxes on the oil companies with her aces scheme and gave a foreign country money to build a national gas pipeline passing over Exxon and BP the companies that actually have the gas.

She talks conservative now like McCain because she has to win the primaries but once she is governing she is not that different than Obama.

Trust me, this lady is no friend of conservatives. If you people elect her into office don’t be surprised if she is working with the next Nancy Pelosi hack on immigration and climate change. Do you think Palin actually cares about our issues? She would sell us out for Hispanic votes for her reelection bid.

Do you think Obama is the biggest threat to free markets? Just wait until Palin goes to war with wall street like she did with the oil companies in Alaska.

Why do think her biggest critics were conservatives before she was picked for the nomination? Democrats loved her until that day.

Everyone seems to have missed Rep. Eric Cantor. The health-care “summit” in Feb. gave us a preview of what an Obama-Cantor debate might look like, and (depending on whom you ask) Cantor spanked the President, or the President put Cantor in his place. Regardless, if it comes to pass, Cantor could, with his youth, intellect and experience (much more than Obama’s 2 years in the Senate), be a formidable opponent.

The hidden complicating factor in all of this is the Republican Primary system. The GOP’s winner-take-all primaries were hugely responsible for the relatively moderate McCain squeaking out the early wins as four ‘more-conservative-than-thou’ candidates beat each other up (its interesting to wonder how things would have been different if Guiliani had, you know, shown up).

There are talks that the GOP may change this system in 2012, at least for some states. If it doesn’t, though, there are some interesting paths for the party to avoid Palin, whether intentionally or not. It’s not hard, for example, to imagine a world where Palin, Huckabee and Pawlenty fight over the Tea Party contingent and split 60% of the vote in many states, allowing a Romney that slides to the center to win a whole bunch of states with 30-35% and steal the nomination. Not hard at all, considering how most candidates are currently terrified of doing anything other than kissing Tea Party ass.

Although I appreciate your insight and agree with many of the points you address, it’s a shame that we are forced to address a characterization of Palin which the leftist media has successfully created.

“a characterization of Palin which the leftist media has successfully created.”

Palin has had ample opportunity in the year since she quit the governorship to prove the “leftist media” wrong. Instead, she’s gone out of her way to confirm the general impressions of her. Whatever she might have been or become, whether her enemies were always right about her or whether she’s chosen to become what they said she was – part base-consolidation strategy, part spite – she is by now through and through a far right conviction politician representing a culturally reactionary political movement. This ain’t anyone “making things up”: This has all been Palin in her very own words, completely under her own control – from her rambling resignation announcement to “death panel” to “Mama Grizzlies” to “stab in the heart” – playing the part of politically shrewd, intellectually shallow (“just like us real people!”) demagogue.

Many if not all of the things that endear her to a possible plurality of Republicans will make it more difficult for her to put together a majority coalition down the line. In the meantime, people are reacting to what she has either chosen to offer or has no choice but to offer. To believe otherwise is in its own way more demeaning than simply dismissing her as a ditz.

I’m absolutely aghast that anyone would compare Palin to Reagan and equally struck by how little some of those who claim to carry his torch actually resemble the man. Reagan behaved like a man who didn’t believe he had any enemies while politicians like Palin and Gingrich have built their careers on creating them. I would like to remind the poster making this inappropriate comparison, that “liberals” didn’t hate and dismiss Reagan to the degree she suggests. Ever hear of the term “Reagan Democrat?” Historians estimate that about 25% of Democratic voters voted for Reagan over a sitting Democratic president in 1980. I was one of them so that figure doesn’t surprise me.

I also think the author short changes Huckabee’s chances if he does decide to run. In fact, Huckabee is the only current notable Republican who really does remind me of Reagan.

you forgot Jeb Bush. He could consolidate the establishment and activist support, build a superior organization and have better funding then Romney. And unlike Mitt, he can compete with Palin in Iowa and South Carolina. He’d also be stronger in a general election then Daniels, Barbour, etc. because of his long history of appeal with hispanics. Jeb in 2012 could be the establishments real alternative to Palin.

I think discounting Jeb is exactly the wrong thing to do. Everything from the economy to the wars were at least being managed under GWB. Therefore, I don’t think the Bush name is any longer a negative, as bad as things have become now. Obama will not totally smash Palin! This is not a popularity contest and Obama can kiss Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Indiana and yes, Pennsylvania GOODBYE! That is 275 without Ohio and New Hampshire. The 2012 Electoral College will be different and stronger in the Red States and weaker in the Blue.